Here we see that the FX Patch brings a decent boost in performance, averaging +5.17% across all 12 tests. The largest performance increase comes in the .NET Arithmetic - Dhrystone test, where we see a +24.6% difference. This is the most significant increase in performance I have yet to see for the FX patch.

Comparing my AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz to an intel 2600k @ 4.6 Ghz for 10 of the 12 tests, and a 2600k @ 4.3 Ghz for 2 of the 12 tests, we see an average performance difference of -0.07% , implying that AMD is still not so behind in this notoriously Intel favoured benchmark. The reason that two of the tests were not carried out @ 4.6 Ghz in the .NET Arithmetic scores , but instead @ 4.3 Ghz , is because scores @ 4.6 Ghz were not included in the internal comparison benchmarks listed. Of course this will play into the averaged difference, so I suspect that the 2600k @ 4.8 Ghz should beat the FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz by an average of 5% give or take. I might re visit this later on with my own testing to confirm this.

We can really see that intel and AMD have different strengths and weaknesses across the 12 tests in this benchmark.

We can see here that the FX Windows 7 Patch brings about +1% in performance when compared to without it. This pushes AVP performance with a stock 6990 above that of with an intel 980x @ 4.0 Ghz by +4.3% without AA, and by +23.5% with 4xMSAA. I used Catalyst 12.1b for the pre-Patch scores, and 12.1 Final Build for post-Patch scores.

For Comparison's sake we may also examine results from HEXUS.net with Two 7950's @ 900/1250 in Crossfire and catalyst 12.1 Final Build (which is also what I used in my updated Patch FPS). This test is with a Stock i5 2500k @ 3.6 Ghz Turbo. It should be noted that this test is with 4xMSAA but also with 16xAF as well, which the above test with 4xMSAA lacks - in accordance to Tom's review. So take these results with a grain of salt! (Although AF affects fps minimally in this game, while AA affects it significantly).

source: HEXUS

As we can see, Two 7950's OCd @ 900/1250 in crossfire only score a measly 114.0 FPS with an i5 2500k @ 3.6 Ghz Turbo. Despite the fact that this test has AF enabled, the other settings and identical. My Patched FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz with 6990 @ 990/1500 scores 124.5 FPS , which is +9.2% higher FPS than the intel rig with 2 x 7950 OC @ 900/1250 in Crossfire. We can also see that FX with a 6990 @ 990/1500 scores +37.1% more fps than the i5 2500k @ 3.6 ghz with Two GTX 580's in SLI OC @ 797/1594.

Here we can see that my AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz manages to keep up with an overclocked intel i7 2600k at different maximum overclocks on several different Z68 boards. The performance per Ghz of an 8 core FX is roughly that of a 2600k/2700k, and if not only a hair better. Overall, Good Job on this one AMD.

DIRT 3 Revisited ... Again! (By Request)

DIRT 3: Revisited for a third time!

So I had some requests to re bench my FX rig @ 4.0 ghz in the DIRT 3 benchmark to see how well bulldozer fairs against intel's i5 2500k @ 4.0 Ghz.

RESULTS:

source: Tomshardware

Here we see my AMD FX 8150 @ 4.0 Ghz still manages to keep a lead over intel's i5 2500k also at 4.0 Ghz when my 6990 is running at stock settings (830/1250). FX has a +8.6% lead in minimum FPS, and a +20% lead in average FPS. It is interesting to note that when the 6990 is stock, overclocking my AMD FX 8150 and additional 800 Mhz to 4.8 Ghz brings a benefit of +12.3% benefit to minimum FPS, and a +5.0% benefit to AVG fps.

Fritz Chess 4.3 Benchmark!

ROUND 16: Frtiz Chess 4.3 benchmark

RESULTS:

Scaling with this benchmark is awful compared to cinebench 11.5. Fritz single core to multi core performance scales as ~5.44, while Cinebench 11.5 scales as ~6.66. However, single core performance of my overclocked FX 8150 manages to beat an ivy bridge i7 part @ 3.9 Ghz by +5.7%. Single core performance of my FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz falls behind that of an i5 2500k @ 4.8 Ghz by about ~30%.The other results have been gathered from what I have seen with a few quick google searches.

Cinebench 10 benchmarks!

ROUND 17 : Cinebench 10

How will FX fair in this 5 year old benchmark?

RESULTS:

As we found with Fritz Chess benchmark, scaling with this older benchmark is not nearly as good as it should be and as it is found to be with newer and more optimized software, such as Cinebench 11.5. In Cinebench 10, my AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz scales as ~5.53, while in Cinebench 11.5 it scales as ~6.66.

Comparing our score:

(from various online sources)

Single Core performance of my FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz manages to beat a Phenom II core @ 4.0 Ghz by +12.1%. Scaling in this older benchmark (2007) is not so pretty. Even for intel's 12 threaded processors, scaling is lower than FX. A hypothetical AMD FX 8150 with ~6.66 scaling would score **32527** , a hypothetical i7 3960x with ~6.49 scaling would score **39219**. (Scaling taken from Cinebench 11.5) Single core performance of an AMD FX @ 4.8 Ghz with compared to an i7 2600k also @ 4.8 Ghz is worse by -37.7% , but multihtreaded performance is behind by only -15%. A hypothetical 2600k @ 4.8 Ghz with ~4.49 scaling would score **35210**. (Scalings taken from cinebench 11.5)

As we can see, scaling seems to be a big issue with older benchmarks. This could be one of the many reasons FX shows many weaknesses in older benchmarks.

x264 FHD Benchmarks

Round 18: x264 FHD benchmarks

RESULTS:

In this benchmark, we can see that my AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz slightly beats the performance of a 12 threaded 980x @ 3.57 Ghz. . Performance per Ghz of the FX 8150 (5.40) is higher than the intel i7 2600k. (5.33).

Its interesting to see stremghts and weaknesses in both CPUs across various tests. Most noteably, in the ensight-04 test the i7 3960x @ 4.7 Ghz manages to perform -34.5% worse when compared to my AMD FX 8150 also @ 4.7 with a 6990 at the exact same clock. However, in the proe-05 test, the i7 3960x scores +40.5% better than my AMD FX 8150 rig at the same clocks.

Overall, my AMD FX 8150 only lags behind the i7 3960x rig by -4.4% at the same CPU/GPU clocks on average. Overclocking back up to 4.8 Ghz, and increasing my GPU clocks to 990/1500 Mhz results in only a +2.7% increase in performance when compared to the lower clocked FX.

A Special Thanks to alexmaia_br from the overclock.net community for sharing his results to compare with.

**Cinebench 10 Revisited**

Intel Compiler Patcher scans your hard drive for executable files compiled with the Intel C++ Compiler making it possible to disable the CPU dispatcher in detected files, thus, increasing performance of the software that uses these files with CPUs other than Intel. Give Intel Compiler Patcher a try to see what it's really capable of!

source - Softpedia

Without further ado,

RESULTS:

Here we see a welcome gain of 0.7% in both single core and multi-threaded performance. Also note that scaling has dropped -0.2% down to 5.52 from 5.53.

**7-Zip Revisited - Sandy's Back!**

This time let's see if FX can stand up to its intel counterpart the 2600k.

fair enough...indeed i see you've put alot of time in this and i respect that ,but not sure if it was you or someone else who made other similar threads..there was a guy who put some cats in his pics,anyway it was proven before that the patch doesnt bring much performance on the table and it's really not worth to go with an FX CPU over a sandy bridge one unless you have tight pockets AND already own a bulldozer capable mobo.

Sandy bridge is generally better at everything...bulldozer shines...actually no it doesnt shine its slightly better in some not all...heavy threaded applications(most being synthetic tests) Bulldozer is not that tempting for the general population..thats why you don't see many bulldozer users. Where i live for example the FX 8xxx costs more than the i5 2500k and that price isn't justified by any means. Anyway sorry for this long reply. To sum it all up.

You are telling us what we already know.Only that you seem to favor bulldozer but i don't know why..

fair enough...indeed i see you've put alot of time in this and i respect that ,but not sure if it was you or someone else who made other similar threads..there was a guy who put some cats in his pics,anyway it was proven before that the patch doesnt bring much performance on the table and it's really not worth to go with an FX CPU over a sandy bridge one unless you have tight pockets AND already own a bulldozer capable mobo.

Sandy bridge is generally better at everything...bulldozer shines...actually no it doesnt shine its slightly better in some not all...heavy threaded applications(most being synthetic tests) Bulldozer is not that tempting for the general population..thats why you don't see many bulldozer users. Where i live for example the FX 8xxx costs more than the i5 2500k and that price isn't justified by any means. Anyway sorry for this long reply. To sum it all up.

You are telling us what we already know.Only that you seem to favor bulldozer but i don't know why..

now actually I know why Spain is in financial crysis, thanks for the head up. Next time try harder and finally get some sense in your comments.

now actually I know why Spain is in financial crysis, thanks for the head up. Next time try harder and finally get some sense in your comments.

I see you try very hard...just like you commented on my premature reply above so did i on his thread ..that doesn't make you better than me,he asked for feedback.. I admit i should have elaborated more from the start, i will do that next time.

Only thing is i dont have a blueray player or a blue ray for that matter but I will definitely look into this! I am trying my best to include everyone's requests across all my forum posts on different sites.

And again, I dont believe that the patch stinks. If you look at my latest post with sandra 2012, one of the benchmarks gets +24.6% increase in performance. This is significant. Also, look at PCMARK 7 pre patch vs post patch scores. I am sure there will be multiple more examples where the patch actually does help, but you are correct that most the time its only a 0-5% benefit which isnt so significant.

Only thing is i dont have a blueray player or a blue ray for that matter but I will definitely look into this! I am trying my best to include everyone's requests across all my forum posts on different sites.

how about clocking the intel chips to the same speed as the BD? I asked you this several times in the thread alone. until you do this this results are skewed and not fair and not to be taken seriously. A lot of people on here are very savvy and will never take any of there benchmarks sereiously. you say you do not work for amd, but I do not see any other posts frrom you in this forum. this makes me scepable. keep comparing low clocked i7 1366 to BD at 4.8ghz will not get you any sympathy here. google your name followed by bulldozer with net the same exact benchmarks from other sites. make a BD review with similarly clocked I7 or i5 and I make take a look but unfair benches like I am seeing here is rubbish. you wanted feedback and this is what I attempted to do.

It isnt like i am purposely comparing with CPUs at those frequency, it is more like that is what i could find online to compare with. If every review had an i7 2600k @ 4.8 Ghz I would gladly show this comparison. I am in no way trying to hide anything here,

Every case where I could find a 2600k at 4.8 ghz, or around this, I have included. I will most likely redo all my benchmarks with a 2600k and the exact GPU eventually, stay tuned.

how about clocking the intel chips to the same speed as the BD? I asked you this several times in the thread alone. until you do this this results are skewed and not fair and not to be taken seriously. A lot of people on here are very savvy and will never take any of there benchmarks sereiously. you say you do not work for amd, but I do not see any other posts frrom you in this forum. this makes me scepable. keep comparing low clocked i7 1366 to BD at 4.8ghz will not get you any sympathy here. google your name followed by bulldozer with net the same exact benchmarks from other sites. make a BD review with similarly clocked I7 or i5 and I make take a look but unfair benches like I am seeing here is rubbish. you wanted feedback and this is what I attempted to do.

I thought this was the AMD section,Why is it people with intel systems are so arguative with this post.It seems like the trend with any AMD post is will turn into hostile negativity by people with intel systems.Someone explain this to me.

^^^^^^^^if you want to believe this review go right ahread. the testing methods vs the intel counterparts were clocked considerably lower than the BD counterparts. Last time I checked I can post is every section on this forum. and I will continue to post here as long as the testing methods favor one brand and is unfair to the other brand. OP you can say you are going to post fair reviews and I await them

^^^^^^^^if you want to believe this review go right ahread. the testing methods vs the intel counterparts were clocked considerably lower than the BD counterparts. Last time I checked I can post is every section on this forum. and I will continue to post here as long as the testing methods favor one brand and is unfair to the other brand. OP you can say you are going to post fair reviews and I await them

Im not saying anything that i believe,im just curious for example:Hey my AMD whatever cpu overclocked did this on that benchmark utility,yay............Then maybe few good job ol chap from AMD based systems members's then comes all the negativity from Intel im going to say fan's.
It seems like any AMD post good or bad gets torn down by intel fan's almost everytime........WHY!

its is a very skewed review in every sense of the term. if you want to believe in viral marketing go right ahead. me I do not believe this review one bit and have explaine many times in this thread. I am a fan of 100% unbiased reviews and this does not have any of the traits of an unbiased review. similar to the hardocp review of bulldozer.